![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I edited the chassis information to align with what is stated in Scuderia_Toro_Rosso#Car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.38.60 ( talk) 18:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In common with a few other articles, this one contains a fair amount of information on not only Red Bull's immediate predecessor (jaguar), but also the iteration before that (Stewart). I tend to feel that this is unecessary and leads to a lot of duplication across the articles. I propose that a short reference to Jaguar's demise and Red Bull's purchase of the team is sufficient, together with the link to the Jag article, which covers the previous history. I'd like to delete the extra material from this article, pasting anything that is not already there into the Jag or Stewart articles. Any views? 4u1e 18:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
OK - I've copied relevant stuff to the Jag article. What I propose therefore is deleting the first two paras, which are not especially relevant to RB itself: "The history of the team started with Jackie Stewart's Stewart Formula One team in 1997. The Stewart team had become quite competitive by 1999, winning a race in its own right in its final year. Ford, as part of its global marketing operations, bought the team outright and renamed it Jaguar Racing; Jaguar is a premium car company owned by Ford. However, during the years of Ford's ownership, the team was unable to revive its performances of 1999. The team's inconsistent results are generally attributed to a high turnover rate with team management. In Jaguar's five-year tenure, it withstood three management shakeups, including names such as triple world champion Niki Lauda and CART champion Bobby Rahal, as well as an abortive attempt to lure McLaren's incumbent technical director, Adrian Newey.
Jaguar's Formula One parent company, Ford, issued a polite ultimatum as part of a reduction in sport involvement internationally. In particular, because Jaguar did not advertise the core Ford brand, there was little return of value from the enormous amount of money invested, so funding was reduced from Ford itself. Ford chose to sell the operation near the end of 2004 despite a more consistent showing in its previous two years." 4u1e 06:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Done, as of the 10th, I think. 4u1e 12 April 2006
Looks like there are some French visitors who aren't too happy with Red Bull's latest PR stunt. Here is a link: http://www.autosport.com/news/grapevine.php/id/53053&type=news&id=53053 Also, RBR has taken the press release down so I cannot find it on their website anymore.
Anyway, just keep an eye out for people changing things maliciously around here. -- MattDell 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I just fixed up an ambiguous line of "Red Bull being seen as politically close to Ferrari" by explaining the reasons why. Ian X490 10:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Red Bull is entering in a team for the Nextel/Sprint Cup series beginning in 2007. Should we be adding some info on the new team?
I think we leave it as Red Bull Racing is the F1 team. Ian X490 10:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Red Bull is entering NASCAR, but that information belongs in the Team Red Bull article. I think a disambiguation link may be in order, but the information belongs in separate articles. Mustang6172 20:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Red bull racing logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Any reason for it? -- Narson ~ Talk • 19:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody add some sources to the Austrian licence claim? VincentG 03:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Weird though that the nationalities aren't mentioned in Formula1.com team profiles or any easily accessible FIA documents. If someone finds the official FIA documents that would atleast be bulletproof information. -- Pudeo ' 09:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Question: Is there a reference to PROVE that they ever registered as Austrian? Should it not be the case that a team get its nationality, so to speak, from its home base unless solid proof may be provided to the contrary?-- Amedeo Félix ( talk) 10:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the owner relevant? Manchester United FC are owned by an American company doesn't make them American though. Would they be successful if they were based in Austria an run by Austrians? The UK is the clear world leader in advanced engineering as far motor sport is concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.171.110 ( talk) 10:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The ÖAMTC (Austrian FIA Member Organisation) appealed on behalf of its competitor Red Bull Racing against the BrownGP diffuser [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dopsch ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The official Red Bull Racing website clearly states that the team is Austrian but based in the UK, therefore the team is Austrian: http://www.redbullracing.com/cs/Satellite/en_INT/Red-Bull-Racing-Team-Member-Profile/001242807164021 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.136.237 ( talk) 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
...is looking like an intidy list / diary entries. Just pointing out, as it will probably need condensing into a proper paragraph. Orphan Wiki 12:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Indonesian Wikipedia have SVG version for RBR logo. You can look at this link:
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkas:RBR.svg
F1fans (
talk)
16:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Their is not much infomation on the teams 2011 season? HRT F1 Team ( talk) 17:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. -- BDD ( talk) 22:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
Red Bull Racing → Infiniti Red Bull Racing – From 2013 the Red Bull Racing Formula One team will officially be titled ‘Infiniti Red Bull Racing’. The page title should be updated to reflect the new team name. 193.193.188.8 ( talk) 14:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Does anyone know what Nissan (Infiniti) contribute to the team other than money? Is a major car manufacturer really contributing nothing but sponsorship money to a racing team? Is this notable for the article? 122.59.225.50 ( talk) 11:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the article Red Bull Technology can be merged with this because it's a stub and covers almost solely a controversy about the client chassis. There's no really information referred to the company and at present it is the de facto in-house design studio of Red Bull. Regards. -- Urbanoc ( talk) 18:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)-
The infobox heading is "Red Bull-TAG Heuer" at the moment. Prior to changing it to TAG Heuer, it was Red Bull-Renault.
I want to discuss two things here:
Arguments:
Long story short: my proposal is that "Red Bull-TAG Heuer" should be changed to "Red Bull Racing-Renault" until at least the new year, when it should be changed to "Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer". Khairul Islam 01:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khairul Islam ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Red Bull Racing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Red Bull Racing's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "RBR swap":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
When we write article content we have a duty to provide full accurate and verifiable information and to maintain a neutral point of view. To those ends I changed the first sentence from "Red Bull Racing is an Austrian Formula One racing team based in Milton Keynes, England." to "Red Bull Racing is a British Formula One racing team, [1] racing under an Austrian licence, and based in Milton Keynes, England. This change was quickly reverted by Britmax.
I believe that without the facts I added, that the article is now misleading, non-neutral and factually inaccurate in that it gives the impression that Red Bull Racing Limited is an Austrian company. The company is clearly British as it is the same company that originally raced as Stewart Grand Prix, then Jaguar Racing F1 Team. The team wasn't disbanded, the personnel were carried forward with the renamings, the company is still registered under the same ID number with Companies House and is still based in the same UK buildings, and has its HQ in the UK.
I guess the complication arises when we consider the status that having an Austrian racing licence confers upon the company. As far as I can tell, as that licence does is require them to race under the Austrian flag and play the Austrian national anthem.
So what can we do about it? I would like to see something similar to my sentence above inserted back into the article to restore credibility and legitimacy to the article. What do others think? -- de Facto ( talk). 19:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
References
I would argue that this violates NPOV. I have seen the argument that Red Bull is British played out elsewhere on the internet, and it is always motivated by one thing: British fans trying to claim Red Bull's success as British successes. We should only concern ourselves with one thing — what the FIA says. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 09:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, the team has to be registered with Companies House in order to do business. After all, they have to buy things from contractors. Being registered with Companies House doesn't make their Britishness their defining quality. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 10:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The team is owned by Dietrich Mateschitz, who chooses to represent them as Austrian. They race under an Austrian licence, appear as Austrian on entry lists, and when they win a race, the Austrian national flag is shown and anthem played. The FIA recognise them as Austrian, and so should we. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 20:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Look at the wording for Red Bull Racing:
Now compare that to the wording for Force India:
Both teams were founded in Britain, are based in Britain, employ large numbers of Britons, and compete under licences issued by other countries. However, the wording of the Red Bull introduction emphasises their Britishness before anything else, whereas the Force India introduction only mentions Britain in the context of its base of operations. The casual reader is led to believe that Red Bull is a British team that has coincidentally adopted an Austrian identity for the time being, whereas Force India is a team that identifies as Indian, but is based in Britain. Despite the similarities, they are being presented in two very different ways, and I don't think Red Bull is being presented in a neutral manner because it implies that their success is British success despite their chosen identity as being Austrian. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 01:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Could I suggest we use "Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team based in the United Kingdom..." instead of Milton Keynes? Simply because the exact location of the team's headquarters is not important enough for the opening sentence, and using United Kingdom emphasises the fact the team is partially British a little stronger, which creates a stronger comprise between the two sides. QueenCake ( talk) 15:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity I intend that my proposed wording be: "Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team, racing under an Austrian licence, based in Milton Keynes, England.". When I noticed I had mistakingly forgotten a part I added it to my original proposal but it got reverted. T v x1 17:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
To clarify my point, I was essentially supporting Tvx1's wording, with the only tweak being exchanging Milton Keynes for United Kingdom, in the interests of comprise and the belief that the exact location was not important enough for the opening sentence. Whatever wording that leaves out an adjective before "Red Bull Racing" will do. QueenCake ( talk) 22:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that we go with @ Tvx1's wording, but apply it to all constructor articles:
I like this because it's neutral, consistent across the articles, and acknowleges the team identity—because when you think about it, Ferrari and Williams are really the only teams with a correlation between their identity and their heritage. Red Bull Racing was founded by Britons, but is owned by an Austrian company that manufactures and distributes a product that originates in Thailand. McLaren competes under a British licence, but was founded by a New Zealander and funded by Bahrainis. Haas is owned by an American, but uses a chassis designed by an Italian firm and is based in England.
Besides, presenting a team as being of one nationality because of its history, headquarters, founder and workforce constitutes original research, especially if it competes under a different licence. What if a new team joins with a Bolivian licence, but was a) founded by a Mongolian, b) is based in Zimbabwe, c) mostly employs Latvians, and d) competed exclusively in Taiwan before joining the grid? Would that team be considered Bolivian, Mongolian, Zimbabwean, Latvian or Taiwanese? Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 03:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Reading back through the discussion, and extracting what I believe are the latest suggestions from all who have made a suggestion, I think we have the following proposals (in chronological order):
Please correct me if I've got it wrong. What shall we use? -- de Facto ( talk). 17:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity...-- de Facto ( talk). 17:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.And that is surely what we did, I thought. -- de Facto ( talk). 20:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
As no-one seems to be objecting to any of these four the last three proposals, and as more than one commenter supported Tvx1's proposal, I have implemented that, the 3b proposal from above. --
de Facto (
talk).
17:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
My proposal is the same as #1 with running being replaced by racing., and that I used verbatim to correct what I had originally given? I'm even more confused now. -- de Facto ( talk). 17:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team, racing under an Austrian licence, based in the United Kingdom.-- de Facto ( talk). 20:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Red Bull Racing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
There should be a section created under "corporate information" for "Red Bull Powertrains" -- 67.70.27.105 ( talk) 16:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Request that Max Verstappen is placed above Sergio Perez, this is due to Verstappen electing to use car number 1 2A02:C7F:5817:8E00:18FD:DF66:3BDF:FAD4 ( talk) 02:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I just browsed motorsport.com and found an interesting read. On 22nd of December 2021, RB apparently extended Horner's contract ' at least until 2026'. Is this notable enough to include in this page? Thanks. Klrfl ( talk) 11:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I have added team logo as it seems like this is the only F1 team page without its logo. If there are any copyright violations, please replace the image but there needs to be a team logo image. The current image is from the team website redbullracing.com itself. Thanks Vinrpm.p6054 ( talk) 16:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I edited the chassis information to align with what is stated in Scuderia_Toro_Rosso#Car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.38.60 ( talk) 18:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In common with a few other articles, this one contains a fair amount of information on not only Red Bull's immediate predecessor (jaguar), but also the iteration before that (Stewart). I tend to feel that this is unecessary and leads to a lot of duplication across the articles. I propose that a short reference to Jaguar's demise and Red Bull's purchase of the team is sufficient, together with the link to the Jag article, which covers the previous history. I'd like to delete the extra material from this article, pasting anything that is not already there into the Jag or Stewart articles. Any views? 4u1e 18:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
OK - I've copied relevant stuff to the Jag article. What I propose therefore is deleting the first two paras, which are not especially relevant to RB itself: "The history of the team started with Jackie Stewart's Stewart Formula One team in 1997. The Stewart team had become quite competitive by 1999, winning a race in its own right in its final year. Ford, as part of its global marketing operations, bought the team outright and renamed it Jaguar Racing; Jaguar is a premium car company owned by Ford. However, during the years of Ford's ownership, the team was unable to revive its performances of 1999. The team's inconsistent results are generally attributed to a high turnover rate with team management. In Jaguar's five-year tenure, it withstood three management shakeups, including names such as triple world champion Niki Lauda and CART champion Bobby Rahal, as well as an abortive attempt to lure McLaren's incumbent technical director, Adrian Newey.
Jaguar's Formula One parent company, Ford, issued a polite ultimatum as part of a reduction in sport involvement internationally. In particular, because Jaguar did not advertise the core Ford brand, there was little return of value from the enormous amount of money invested, so funding was reduced from Ford itself. Ford chose to sell the operation near the end of 2004 despite a more consistent showing in its previous two years." 4u1e 06:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Done, as of the 10th, I think. 4u1e 12 April 2006
Looks like there are some French visitors who aren't too happy with Red Bull's latest PR stunt. Here is a link: http://www.autosport.com/news/grapevine.php/id/53053&type=news&id=53053 Also, RBR has taken the press release down so I cannot find it on their website anymore.
Anyway, just keep an eye out for people changing things maliciously around here. -- MattDell 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I just fixed up an ambiguous line of "Red Bull being seen as politically close to Ferrari" by explaining the reasons why. Ian X490 10:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Red Bull is entering in a team for the Nextel/Sprint Cup series beginning in 2007. Should we be adding some info on the new team?
I think we leave it as Red Bull Racing is the F1 team. Ian X490 10:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Red Bull is entering NASCAR, but that information belongs in the Team Red Bull article. I think a disambiguation link may be in order, but the information belongs in separate articles. Mustang6172 20:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Red bull racing logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Any reason for it? -- Narson ~ Talk • 19:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody add some sources to the Austrian licence claim? VincentG 03:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Weird though that the nationalities aren't mentioned in Formula1.com team profiles or any easily accessible FIA documents. If someone finds the official FIA documents that would atleast be bulletproof information. -- Pudeo ' 09:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Question: Is there a reference to PROVE that they ever registered as Austrian? Should it not be the case that a team get its nationality, so to speak, from its home base unless solid proof may be provided to the contrary?-- Amedeo Félix ( talk) 10:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the owner relevant? Manchester United FC are owned by an American company doesn't make them American though. Would they be successful if they were based in Austria an run by Austrians? The UK is the clear world leader in advanced engineering as far motor sport is concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.171.110 ( talk) 10:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The ÖAMTC (Austrian FIA Member Organisation) appealed on behalf of its competitor Red Bull Racing against the BrownGP diffuser [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dopsch ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The official Red Bull Racing website clearly states that the team is Austrian but based in the UK, therefore the team is Austrian: http://www.redbullracing.com/cs/Satellite/en_INT/Red-Bull-Racing-Team-Member-Profile/001242807164021 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.136.237 ( talk) 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
...is looking like an intidy list / diary entries. Just pointing out, as it will probably need condensing into a proper paragraph. Orphan Wiki 12:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Indonesian Wikipedia have SVG version for RBR logo. You can look at this link:
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkas:RBR.svg
F1fans (
talk)
16:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Their is not much infomation on the teams 2011 season? HRT F1 Team ( talk) 17:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. -- BDD ( talk) 22:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
Red Bull Racing → Infiniti Red Bull Racing – From 2013 the Red Bull Racing Formula One team will officially be titled ‘Infiniti Red Bull Racing’. The page title should be updated to reflect the new team name. 193.193.188.8 ( talk) 14:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Does anyone know what Nissan (Infiniti) contribute to the team other than money? Is a major car manufacturer really contributing nothing but sponsorship money to a racing team? Is this notable for the article? 122.59.225.50 ( talk) 11:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the article Red Bull Technology can be merged with this because it's a stub and covers almost solely a controversy about the client chassis. There's no really information referred to the company and at present it is the de facto in-house design studio of Red Bull. Regards. -- Urbanoc ( talk) 18:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)-
The infobox heading is "Red Bull-TAG Heuer" at the moment. Prior to changing it to TAG Heuer, it was Red Bull-Renault.
I want to discuss two things here:
Arguments:
Long story short: my proposal is that "Red Bull-TAG Heuer" should be changed to "Red Bull Racing-Renault" until at least the new year, when it should be changed to "Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer". Khairul Islam 01:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khairul Islam ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Red Bull Racing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Red Bull Racing's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "RBR swap":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
When we write article content we have a duty to provide full accurate and verifiable information and to maintain a neutral point of view. To those ends I changed the first sentence from "Red Bull Racing is an Austrian Formula One racing team based in Milton Keynes, England." to "Red Bull Racing is a British Formula One racing team, [1] racing under an Austrian licence, and based in Milton Keynes, England. This change was quickly reverted by Britmax.
I believe that without the facts I added, that the article is now misleading, non-neutral and factually inaccurate in that it gives the impression that Red Bull Racing Limited is an Austrian company. The company is clearly British as it is the same company that originally raced as Stewart Grand Prix, then Jaguar Racing F1 Team. The team wasn't disbanded, the personnel were carried forward with the renamings, the company is still registered under the same ID number with Companies House and is still based in the same UK buildings, and has its HQ in the UK.
I guess the complication arises when we consider the status that having an Austrian racing licence confers upon the company. As far as I can tell, as that licence does is require them to race under the Austrian flag and play the Austrian national anthem.
So what can we do about it? I would like to see something similar to my sentence above inserted back into the article to restore credibility and legitimacy to the article. What do others think? -- de Facto ( talk). 19:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
References
I would argue that this violates NPOV. I have seen the argument that Red Bull is British played out elsewhere on the internet, and it is always motivated by one thing: British fans trying to claim Red Bull's success as British successes. We should only concern ourselves with one thing — what the FIA says. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 09:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, the team has to be registered with Companies House in order to do business. After all, they have to buy things from contractors. Being registered with Companies House doesn't make their Britishness their defining quality. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 10:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The team is owned by Dietrich Mateschitz, who chooses to represent them as Austrian. They race under an Austrian licence, appear as Austrian on entry lists, and when they win a race, the Austrian national flag is shown and anthem played. The FIA recognise them as Austrian, and so should we. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 20:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Look at the wording for Red Bull Racing:
Now compare that to the wording for Force India:
Both teams were founded in Britain, are based in Britain, employ large numbers of Britons, and compete under licences issued by other countries. However, the wording of the Red Bull introduction emphasises their Britishness before anything else, whereas the Force India introduction only mentions Britain in the context of its base of operations. The casual reader is led to believe that Red Bull is a British team that has coincidentally adopted an Austrian identity for the time being, whereas Force India is a team that identifies as Indian, but is based in Britain. Despite the similarities, they are being presented in two very different ways, and I don't think Red Bull is being presented in a neutral manner because it implies that their success is British success despite their chosen identity as being Austrian. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 01:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Could I suggest we use "Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team based in the United Kingdom..." instead of Milton Keynes? Simply because the exact location of the team's headquarters is not important enough for the opening sentence, and using United Kingdom emphasises the fact the team is partially British a little stronger, which creates a stronger comprise between the two sides. QueenCake ( talk) 15:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity I intend that my proposed wording be: "Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team, racing under an Austrian licence, based in Milton Keynes, England.". When I noticed I had mistakingly forgotten a part I added it to my original proposal but it got reverted. T v x1 17:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
To clarify my point, I was essentially supporting Tvx1's wording, with the only tweak being exchanging Milton Keynes for United Kingdom, in the interests of comprise and the belief that the exact location was not important enough for the opening sentence. Whatever wording that leaves out an adjective before "Red Bull Racing" will do. QueenCake ( talk) 22:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that we go with @ Tvx1's wording, but apply it to all constructor articles:
I like this because it's neutral, consistent across the articles, and acknowleges the team identity—because when you think about it, Ferrari and Williams are really the only teams with a correlation between their identity and their heritage. Red Bull Racing was founded by Britons, but is owned by an Austrian company that manufactures and distributes a product that originates in Thailand. McLaren competes under a British licence, but was founded by a New Zealander and funded by Bahrainis. Haas is owned by an American, but uses a chassis designed by an Italian firm and is based in England.
Besides, presenting a team as being of one nationality because of its history, headquarters, founder and workforce constitutes original research, especially if it competes under a different licence. What if a new team joins with a Bolivian licence, but was a) founded by a Mongolian, b) is based in Zimbabwe, c) mostly employs Latvians, and d) competed exclusively in Taiwan before joining the grid? Would that team be considered Bolivian, Mongolian, Zimbabwean, Latvian or Taiwanese? Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 03:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Reading back through the discussion, and extracting what I believe are the latest suggestions from all who have made a suggestion, I think we have the following proposals (in chronological order):
Please correct me if I've got it wrong. What shall we use? -- de Facto ( talk). 17:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity...-- de Facto ( talk). 17:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.And that is surely what we did, I thought. -- de Facto ( talk). 20:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
As no-one seems to be objecting to any of these four the last three proposals, and as more than one commenter supported Tvx1's proposal, I have implemented that, the 3b proposal from above. --
de Facto (
talk).
17:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
My proposal is the same as #1 with running being replaced by racing., and that I used verbatim to correct what I had originally given? I'm even more confused now. -- de Facto ( talk). 17:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team, racing under an Austrian licence, based in the United Kingdom.-- de Facto ( talk). 20:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Red Bull Racing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
There should be a section created under "corporate information" for "Red Bull Powertrains" -- 67.70.27.105 ( talk) 16:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Request that Max Verstappen is placed above Sergio Perez, this is due to Verstappen electing to use car number 1 2A02:C7F:5817:8E00:18FD:DF66:3BDF:FAD4 ( talk) 02:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I just browsed motorsport.com and found an interesting read. On 22nd of December 2021, RB apparently extended Horner's contract ' at least until 2026'. Is this notable enough to include in this page? Thanks. Klrfl ( talk) 11:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I have added team logo as it seems like this is the only F1 team page without its logo. If there are any copyright violations, please replace the image but there needs to be a team logo image. The current image is from the team website redbullracing.com itself. Thanks Vinrpm.p6054 ( talk) 16:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)